News

Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:

  • an article explaining how the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a judgment of the Eastern District of Texas, which dismissed a complaint based on ineligibility of the asserted patent claims;
  • another article detailing how the Federal Circuit released a corrected decision that provides clarity on the question of estoppel based on inter partes review; and
  • a third article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.”

Lexology published an article explaining how, in Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. Intellicentrics, Inc., the Federal Circuit “affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, dismissing the complaint of plaintiff Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc.” The article highlighted how the complaint was dismissed “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because the asserted claims are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

Rob Maier wrote an article for Law.com detailing how “the Federal Circuit initially issued its opinion in California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd. (Caltech),” but it “raised concerns that the Federal Circuit was applying a far broader estoppel than it had before.” Maier noted how the Federal Circuit issued a corrected decision that “provided clarity on the question of whether IPR estoppel applies to invalidity grounds that the challenger ‘reasonably could have raised‘ in the IPR.”

JDSupra released an article assessing how “[e]x parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations.” JDSupra “shed light on these issues, including summarizing the reexamination process and examining estoppel issues associated with establishing a substantial new question (‘SNQ’) of patentability—the limiting function to allow an ex parte reexamination request granted.”